Prosecutor v. Tadic
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Appeals Chamber Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, 35 I.L.M. 32 (1996)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Dusko Tadic (defendant) was the first individual to be tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (plaintiff). He was tried for war crimes and was accused of committing atrocities at the Serb-run Omarska concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992. In his defense, Tadic raised the argument that the ICTY did not have jurisdiction over his case because it was not established until 1993 by a decision of the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council established the ICTY without the participation or consent of any of the states comprising the former Yugoslavia. In making this defense, Tadic relied on the argument that the ICTY was not “established by law,” citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provided that “in the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Tadic argued that this right to a tribunal “established by law” is a “general principle of law recognized by civilized nations,” and is codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.